Performance Efficiency of Dmmmsu Colleges and … EFFICIENCY OF DMMMSU COLLEGES AND INSTITUTES: A DATA ENVELOPMENT ANALYSIS (DEA) STUDY MILAGROS R. BALDEMOR DON MARIANO MARCOS MEMORIAL

International Journal of Scientific & Engineering Research Volume 3, Issue 8, August-2012 1 ISSN 2229-5518

IJSER © 2012

http://www.ijser.org

PERFORMANCE EFFICIENCY OF DMMMSU COLLEGES AND INSTITUTES: A

DATA ENVELOPMENT ANALYSIS (DEA) STUDY

MILAGROS R. BALDEMOR

DON MARIANO MARCOS MEMORIAL STATE UNIVERSITY

SOUTH LA UNION CAMPUS

AGOO, LA UNION


IJSER © 2012


ABSTRACT

This study determined the performance of the 16 colleges and institutes of the Don Mariano Marcos Memorial State University, La Union, vis-à-vis their efficiency along the following performance indicators: Program Requirements, Instruction (Faculty and Students), Research, Extension and Others (Annual Budget) from 2006-2008. The study made use of documentary analysis. It utilized the descriptive evaluative research design and considered several entities for evaluation using a non-parametric approach and non-statistical method called Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA) in Decision Making Units (DMUs). It further employed the Input Oriented Multi - Stage DEA Constant Returns-to-Scale (CRS) Model. The means of the data for the three years, 2006-2008, was taken. The “best practice” in the frontier is the basis to calculate the adjustments necessary for inefficient colleges/ institutes. There is no single college or institute in the entire university which could serve as a model in efficiency in all the performance indicators considered but there are best practices from the

“efficient” DMUs which could be adapted by the “weak efficient” and “inefficient” DMUs..

Acronyms

AACCUP Accreditation Agency of Chartered Colleges and

Universities of the Philippines

CA College of Agriculture


IJSER © 2012


CAM College of Arts and Management

CCR Constant Returns to Scale CE College of Education

CHED Commission on Higher Education

COE College of Engineering COT College of Technology

CS College of Sciences

CTED College of Technical Education

DEA Data Envelopment Analysis DMMMSU Don Mariano Marcos Memorial State University

DMU Decision Making Units

FSDP Faculty and Staff Development Program HEI Higher Education Institutions

IA Institute of Agriculture

IAWM Institute of Agroforestry and Watershed Management ICHAMS Institute of Community Health and Allied Medical

Sciences

ICS Institute of Computer Science ICSt Institute of Computer Studies

IESt Institute of Environmental Studies

IF Institute of Fisheries

IIT Institute of Information Technology IO Input-Output

IQUAME Institutional Quality Assurance Monitoring and

Evaluation IVM Institute of Veterinary Medicine

PS Personal Services

MOOE Maintenance and Other Operating Expenses MLUC Mid La Union Campus

NLUC North La Union Campus

SLUC South La Union Campus SUC State Universities and Colleges

VMGO Vision Mission Goals and Objectives

Situation Analysis

The wave of the times and call on “quality” of higher education rose from the

growing diversity of institutions and millennium students; the declining public support are

always of positive development. This leads universities and colleges, be it private or


IJSER © 2012


public/state, to be conscious and aware of their academic and non-academic activities for

quality and effectiveness in the delivery of education through their departments and staff,

more sensitive to the ways of strengthening the programs and themselves and be more

motivated to act towards the improvement of all their functions.

Institutional autonomy is a necessary measure for a sufficient and effective condition

to develop a “culture of excellence”. Culture of excellence embodies a wide range of quality

control mechanisms, including internal reviews, through which academic excellence is

achieved and sustained. Thus, quality assurance is instituted.

The strategic approach to quality assurance is based on developing the capacity of

higher education institutions to design and deliver high quality programs to meet the needs

of the country and which achieve standards comparable to those of universities in other

countries with which the country competes with (Lagrada, 2007).

The criteria used to assess the quality of work in colleges and universities are closely

linked to their varying missions. Institutional missions become more diverse as mass

higher education develops. The culture of excellence in a prime teacher education college or

university needs not be keyed to the same criteria of quality used to assess work in leading

research universities, and it may be supported by different procedures and mechanisms.

In the Philippines, the higher education system is a key player in the educational and

integral formation of professionally competent, service-oriented, principled and productive

citizens. It has a tri-fold function of teaching, research and extension services. Through

these, it becomes a prime mover of the nation’s socio-economic growth and sustainable

development.

The role of a tertiary education institution are varied and viewed in different

perspective such as: (1) preservation and transmission of knowledge; (2) operating as a


IJSER © 2012


service enterprise that provides instruction, training and services in response to consumer

demands; (3) a producer in human resources to satisfy the trained manpower needs of the

community; and (4) as an institution that provides instruction, research and public services

to its consumers (Lagrada, 2007).

In this regard, the Commission on Higher Education (CHED) is mandated and

responsible for formulating and implementing policies, plans and programs for the efficient

operation of the system of higher education in the country. It is attached to the Office of the

President for Administrative purposes only. It covers both public and private institutions of

higher education as well as degree-granting programs in all post-secondary public and

private educational institutions.

Missions of the higher educational system are to educate and train Filipinos for

enhanced labor productivity and responsible citizenship. This is to institute an

environment where educational access is equitable and to inculcate nationalism and

patriotism in the hearts and minds of the students and graduates.

Furthermore, the Commission on Higher Education is mandated to accelerate the

development of high-level professionals ready to meet international competition and to

serve as Centers for Research and Development. The CHED recognizes the enormous

contribution of higher education institutions in the growth and prominence of tertiary

education in the country and in the Asia- Pacific.

To improve the quality of instruction delivered by the tertiary education institutions,

CHED encourages institutions to seek accreditation and provide a number of incentives in

the form of progressive deregulation, grants and subsidies to institutions with accredited

programs.


IJSER © 2012


As part of its mandate, CHED monitors and evaluates HEIs in the country through

Republic Act 7722. Its purposes are: (a) to make judgment about the effectiveness of the

institution and (b) to ensure the quality of standards and programs.

In addition, it has a renewed push for quality assurance particularly: (a) movement to

mass higher education; (b) emerging new challenges; (c) workforce has become global and

geographically fluid and (d) development of advanced information and communication

technologies

There are different mechanisms of quality assurance. There are program-based like

the authority to grant permit/recognition, standards setting, accreditation, international

certifications, Center of Development/Excellence and international benchmarking.

Institution-based mechanisms include Institutional Quality Assurance Monitoring and

Evaluation (IQUAME), SUC leveling, Philippine Quality Award, Autonomous and

Deregulated Status of HEIs, PSG for university status and Local Colleges and Universities

(http:/ www.ched.gov.ph).

At the institutional level, CHED has developed the following mechanisms: for State

Universities and Colleges Leveling. This has been set to determine the overall performance

of the HEIs in different aspects for classification or categorization of institutions accordingly

based on the various levels of quality (Defensor, 2007).

Assessing the performance of educational institutions vis-à-vis attainment of their

stated objectives is fraught with difficulties. As an alternative measure, the performance of

universities has been assessed using a systemic model (input-output processes)

concentrating on the means of attaining the objectives through indicators as: outputs of the

organization, administrative and technological processes, and the quality and quantity of

inputs used. In general, universities are committed to the traditional goals of preserving


IJSER © 2012


and transmitting knowledge, extending the frontiers of knowledge and applying knowledge

(Poblador, 1998)

Private and public institutions like colleges and universities need to be assessed.

Performance indicators have often been criticized for being inadequate and not conducive to

analyzing efficiency. The measurement of organizational performance and efficiency is an

essential part of the reform for the general welfare of all groups as well as the country. The

measure of efficiency is the possible evaluation of the performance of an organization by

comparing it with the standards of international best practice (Castano and Cabanda,

2007).

The concepts of institutional performance are the embodying components on two

dimensions: effectiveness - is the congruence between outputs and goals or other criteria;

and on one hand, efficiency - links outputs with inputs. The efficiency dimension, has been

relatively neglected to assess institutional performance, is further defined. Efficiency’s

relationship to the economic concepts of productivity is examined. The practical difficulties

in assessment related to the conceptualization and measurement of inputs and outputs has

to reflect in the educational institution’s purposes and processes. Results are used as

management information for action.

Some researches review the progress toward overcoming these difficulties and

examine the ways that recent research addresses the analytical problems of assessing the

input-output component of institutional performance. Studies of input-output relationships

are classified into three categories: (1) input-output-ratio studies, which include the use of

cost-analysis techniques and "productivity" ratios; (2) regression studies, which use

statistical procedures to estimate the typical relationships among the variables; and (3)

production frontier or data envelopment techniques, which identify and explore the most


IJSER © 2012


desirable input-output combinations or estimate the feasible range of these combinations

(Lindsay, 2002)

One of the known CHED supervised state university in the Philippines is the Don

Mariano Marcos Memorial State University (DMMMSU) in La Union.

The Don Mariano Marcos Memorial State University: A Background on Quality

Since its existence, DMMMSU has been performing as one of the best state

universities in the Philippines. This is reflected in the latest

report on the leveling of universities with DMMMSU as one of the top ten (10) Level IV State

Universities and Colleges (SUCs) and among the 107 state higher education institutions

(Bacungan & Gapasin, 2007).

Recently, an institutional self-evaluation was conducted by a team of evaluators

composed of administrators and senior faculty members in the university. The study

conducted aimed to determine the performance level of the institution and the significant

factors which affected its performance. Specifically, it looked into the performance level of

the 16 colleges and institutes along 8 performance indicators namely: program

requirements, planning, curriculum and instruction, student development and services,

physical plant and facilities, research, extension and resource generation and utilization.

The study further aimed to provide direction to planning and to serve as a basis for the

improvement of the existing policies and practices of the institution.

The main tool of the study was an instrument developed by a team of evaluators and

approved by the University Administrative Council through Resolution No. 35, s. 2007. It

made use of 8 performance indicators with sub-indicators and their corresponding points.

Secondary data were obtained through interviews, documents and reports of programs and


IJSER © 2012


projects. A combination of four designs was used namely: quantitative, descriptive,

relational, correlational and cross sectional designs. Frequency counts and percentages,

pair-wise regression and

bivariate correlation analysis were utilized in the study (Ibid, 2007)

In the study on the performance of the 16 colleges and institutes of DMMMSU, the

strengths and weaknesses of the colleges and institutes were uncovered. It revealed that

the general performance level of the entire university was “barely performing” and that the

five factors that significantly affected its performance were Resource Generation, Research,

Extension, Program Requirements and Student Development and Services. The strongest,

however, were Planning and Physical Facilities. In terms of the performance of the 16

colleges and institutes of the university mentioned, there were two “highly performing”, five

“moderately performing”, seven “fairly performing,” and two “barely performing” with the

College of Education of the South La Union Campus as the highest performing college.

The results have been considered by the researcher, thus, this paper regarding the

performance vis-à-vis the efficiency of the 16 colleges and institutes of the same university

has been conceptualized. Furthermore, the evaluation was done through Data Envelopment

Analysis (DEA) along different performance indicators namely Program Requirements,

Instruction, Research, Extension and Others (Annual Budget). It also analyzed the

indicators and sub-indicators where the colleges and institutes performed efficiently and

inefficiently.

Within this context, the university has embarked on improving the areas where the

colleges and institutes did not perform efficiently, thus the need for this study.

Situation Analysis


IJSER © 2012


The wave of the times and call on “quality” of higher education rose from the growing

diversity of institutions and millennium students; the declining public support are always

of positive development. This leads universities and colleges, be it private or public/state, to

be conscious and aware of their academic and non-academic activities for quality and

effectiveness in the delivery of education through their departments and staff, more

sensitive to the ways of strengthening the programs and themselves and be more motivated

to act towards the improvement of all their functions.

Institutional autonomy is a necessary measure for a sufficient and effective condition

to develop a “culture of excellence”. Culture of excellence embodies a wide range of quality

control mechanisms, including internal reviews, through which academic excellence is

achieved and sustained. Thus, quality assurance is instituted.

In the Philippines, the higher education system is a key player in the educational and

integral formation of professionally competent, service-oriented, principled and productive

citizens. It has a tri-fold function of teaching, research and extension services. Through

these, it becomes a prime mover of the nation’s socio-economic growth and sustainable

development.

In this regard, the Commission on Higher Education (CHED) is mandated and

responsible for formulating and implementing policies, plans and programs for the efficient

operation of the system of higher education in the country. It is attached to the Office of the

President for Administrative purposes only. It covers both public and private institutions of

higher education as well as degree-granting programs in all post-secondary public and

private educational institutions.

Furthermore, the Commission on Higher Education is mandated to accelerate the

development of high-level professionals ready to meet international competition and to


IJSER © 2012


serve as Centers for Research and Development. The CHED recognizes the enormous

contribution of higher education institutions in the growth and prominence of tertiary

education in the country and in the Asia- Pacific.

To improve the quality of instruction delivered by the tertiary education institutions,

CHED encourages institutions to seek accreditation and provide a number of incentives in

the form of progressive deregulation, grants and subsidies to institutions with accredited

programs.

As part of its mandate, CHED monitors and evaluates HEIs in the country through

Republic Act 7722. Its purposes are: (a) to make judgment about the effectiveness of the

institution and (b) to ensure the quality of standards and programs.

There are different mechanisms of quality assurance. There are program-based like

the authority to grant permit/recognition, standards setting, accreditation, international

certifications, Center of Development/Excellence and international benchmarking.

Institution-based mechanisms include Institutional Quality Assurance Monitoring and

Evaluation (IQUAME), SUC leveling, Philippine Quality Award, Autonomous and

Deregulated Status of HEIs, PSG for university status and Local Colleges and Universities

(http:/ www.ched.gov.ph).

At the institutional level, CHED has developed the following mechanisms: for State

Universities and Colleges Leveling. This has been set to determine the overall performance

of the HEIs in different aspects for classification or categorization of institutions accordingly

based on the various levels of quality (Defensor, 2007).

Private and public institutions like colleges and universities need to be assessed.

Performance indicators have often been criticized for being inadequate and not conducive to

analyzing efficiency. The measurement of organizational performance and efficiency is an


IJSER © 2012


essential part of the reform for the general welfare of all groups as well as the country. The

measure of efficiency is the possible evaluation of the performance of an organization by

comparing it with the standards of international best practice (Castano and Cabanda,

2007).

One of the known CHED supervised state university in the Philippines is the Don

Mariano Marcos Memorial State University (DMMMSU) in La Union.

Since its existence, DMMMSU has been performing as one of the best state

universities in the Philippines. This is reflected in the latest

report on the leveling of universities with DMMMSU as one of the top ten (10) Level IV State

Universities and Colleges (SUCs) and among the 107 state higher education institutions

(Bacungan & Gapasin, 2007).

It has three campuses: North La Union Campus (NLUC), Mid La Union Campus

(MLUC) and South La Union Campus (SLUC) with different program offerings per campus.

(please refer to the paradigm)

Recently, an institutional self-evaluation was conducted by a team of evaluators

composed of administrators and senior faculty members in the university. The study

conducted aimed to determine the performance level of the institution and the significant

factors which affected its performance. Specifically, it looked into the performance level of

the 16 colleges and institutes along 8 performance indicators namely: program

requirements, planning, curriculum and instruction, student development and services,

physical plant and facilities, research, extension and resource generation and utilization.

The study further aimed to provide direction to planning and to serve as a basis for the

improvement of the existing policies and practices of the institution.


IJSER © 2012


The main tool of the study was an instrument developed by a team of evaluators and

approved by the University Administrative Council through Resolution No. 35, s. 2007. It

made use of 8 performance indicators with sub-indicators and their corresponding points.

Secondary data were obtained through interviews, documents and reports of programs and

projects. A combination of four designs was used namely: quantitative, descriptive,

relational, correlational and cross sectional designs. Frequency counts and percentages,

pair-wise regression and

bivariate correlation analysis were utilized in the study (Ibid, 2007).

In the study on the performance of the 16 colleges and institutes of DMMMSU, the

strengths and weaknesses of the colleges and institutes were uncovered. It revealed that

the general performance level of the entire university was “barely performing” and that the

five factors that significantly affected its performance were Resource Generation, Research,

Extension, Program Requirements and Student Development and Services. The strongest,

however, were Planning and Physical Facilities. In terms of the performance of the 16

colleges and institutes of the university mentioned, there were two “highly performing”, five

“moderately performing”, seven “fairly performing,” and two “barely performing” with the

College of Education of the South La Union Campus as the highest performing college.

The results have been considered by the researcher, thus, this paper regarding the

performance vis-à-vis the efficiency of the 16 colleges and institutes of the same university

has been conceptualized. Furthermore, the evaluation was done through Data Envelopment

Analysis (DEA) along different performance indicators namely Program Requirements,

Instruction, Research, Extension and Others (Annual Budget). It also analyzed the

indicators and sub-indicators where the colleges and institutes performed efficiently and

inefficiently.


IJSER © 2012


Within this context, the university has embarked on improving the areas where the

colleges and institutes did not perform efficiently, thus the need for this study.


IJSER © 2012


23

RESEARCH PARADIGM

Figure 3 – The paradigm illustrates the interplay of the variables in the study

Performance

Efficiency

(fully efficient,

weak efficient,

inefficient)

of

the

University

(SLUC,

MLUC,

NLUC)

(2006-2008)

Input Indicators

1. Program Requirements 2. Instruction (Faculty and Students)

3. Research 4. Extension

5. Others: Annual Budget

Output Indicators

1. Program Requirements 2. Instruction (Faculty and Students) 3. Research

4. Extension 5. Others (Annual Budget)

DEA

Efficient DMUs with Best Practices Efficient

FEEDBACK

DMMMSU

SLUC

CE

CS

ICS

IA

IF

ICHAMS

MLUC

CAM

COT

COE

CTED

IIT

NLUC

CA

IAWM

IESt

ICSt

IVM


IJSER © 2012


Statement of the Problem

The main objective of the study is to determine the performance of the 16 colleges

and institutes of the Don Mariano Marcos Memorial State University vis-à-vis their

efficiency along Program Requirements, Instruction (Faculty and Students), Research,

Extension and Others (Annual Budget).

Specifically, based on the different performance indicators, this study answered the

following questions:

1. What is the efficiency of the different Colleges and Institutes in the different

performance indicators based on the DEA analysis?

2. What are the peer groups and weights of the Colleges and Institutes?

3. What are the virtual inputs/outputs or improvements of the colleges/institutes

to be in the efficient frontier? and

4. Based on the findings, what are the fully efficient Colleges/Institutes of

DMMMSU with best practices?

Methodology

This study used the descriptive evaluative research design. It is also a documentary

analysis and it analyzed the performance of the 16 colleges and institutes of the Don

Mariano Marcos Memorial State University, La Union in terms of their efficiencies using the

different performance indicators namely Program Requirements, Instruction, Research,

Extension and Others (Annual Budget) for three years, 2006-2008.

The researcher considered several entities for evaluation using a non-parametric

approach called Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA) in Decision Making Units (DMUs) to


IJSER © 2012


evaluate and compare the efficiency and performance of the different colleges and institutes

of DMMMSU.

It employed the Input Oriented Multi - Stage Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA)

Constant Returns-to-Scale (CRS) Model to find the most favorable weight and the efficiency

of a DMU equivalent to improving the performance of this DMU by minimizing its inputs

while producing at least the observed output levels.

However, in this study, the researcher used the Data Envelopment Analysis On-Line

Software to evaluate the performance of the different colleges and institutes in terms of

their efficiency scores.

Performance Indicators considered as Input and Output in the study were: Program

Requirements, Instruction (Faculty and Students), Research, Extension and Others (Annual

Budget). Under Program Requirements, the number of programs was considered as an

input, while the Number of Accredited Programs, Accreditation Level, and IQUAME

Documentation were taken as outputs.

Moreover, faculty and students were the sub-indicators in Instruction. Faculty inputs

were: number of faculty, highest educational attainment of faculty and number of faculty

who graduated under the Faculty and Staff Development Program (FSDP) while Academic

Rank of Faculty and number of faculty awardees were the outputs. Student indicators, on

the other hand, were student enrolment, number of recognized student organizations. The

output indicators included number of graduates, number of student activities, and number

of student awardees.

For Research, input variables included the number of on-going researches, number

of research staff/personnel, and number of linkages. Output variables were the number of

completed researches, number of published researches and number or researches


IJSER © 2012


presented in local/regional/international fora. The quantity of researches included the

researches of faculty and students.

In Extension, the input variables were the number of on-going extension projects,

number of extension staff/personnel, and number of linkages while the outputs were

number of completed extension projects and number of clients served in the Extension

Programs.

The Others, as indicator, included the inputs Annual Budget as allotted to

Personnel Services (PS) and Maintenance and Other Operating Expenses (MOOE) while

Income Generated was the output. This performance indicator is entirely different from the

previous studies since it is done by campus not as per college/institute. This was due to

the unavailability of data at the accounting office of campuses particularly the Mid La

Union Campus (MLUC). All these variables were subjected to Data Envelopment Analysis

for efficiency measures.

The primary source of data was the vital documents requested and gathered by the

researcher from the different Colleges and Institutes of the three campuses of the

University. These were also available at the Office of the Vice President for Academic Affairs.

Meanwhile, the data on the annual budget were obtained from the accounting offices of the

three campuses. Secondary data were sourced- out from researches conducted in the

internet/data bases, refereed journals, annual reports and other working papers.

Conclusions

The following Colleges/Institutes/Campuses were “fully efficient” in the following

performance indicators: A. Program Requirements: College of Education, College of

Sciences, Institute of Fisheries, Institute of Information Technology, College of Agriculture

and Institute of Agroforestry and Watershed Management B. Instruction (Faculty): College


IJSER © 2012


of Education, College of Sciences, Institute of Computes Science, Institute of Agriculture,

Institute of Fisheries, Institute of Community Health and Allied Medical Sciences, College of

Technical Education, College of Agriculture, Institute of Agroforestry and Watershed

Management, Institute of Environmental Studies, Institute of Computer Studies and

Institute of Veterinary Medicine. C. Instruction (Students): College of Education, College of

Sciences, Institute of Computes Science, Institute of Agriculture, Institute of Fisheries,

Institute of Community Health and Allied Medical Sciences, College of Technical Education,

Institute of Information Technology, College of Agriculture, Institute of Agroforestry and

Watershed Management, Institute of Environmental Studies, Institute of Computer Studies.

D. Research: all Colleges and Institutes except College of Arts and Management. E.

Extension: College of Sciences, Institute of Agriculture, College of Technical Education,

College of Agriculture, Institute of Environmental Studies, Institute of Computer Studies

and Institute of Veterinary Medicine. F. Others (Annual Budget – PS, MOOE)): Mid La

Union Campus and North La Union Campus. The Over-all efficient colleges are: College of

Sciences and College of Agriculture. The “fully efficient” Colleges and Institutes have their

own colleges/institutes as their peers and weights in the different performance indicators.

They are the references or peers of the “weak efficient” and “inefficient” colleges and

institutes. Different “weak efficient” and “inefficient” DMUs have different peers and

weights. Different “weak efficient” and “inefficient” DMUs have different virtual IOs in their

respective inputs/outputs in all the performance indicators. “Fully efficient” DMUs do not

need virtual IOs. There is no single college or institute in the entire university which could

serve as a model in efficiency in all of the performance indicators considered.


IJSER © 2012


Recommendations

The findings in the study may give impetus to the Commission on Higher Education

(CHED), lawmakers or legislators, and the University administrators to adopt measures

that would be beneficial to the improvement of DMMMSU from its inefficiency. In the light

of the findings, the following are recommended by the researcher: For efficiency, the deans

and directors of the 16 Colleges and Institutes should be encouraged to submit their

programs for higher accreditation status/level. The faculty and students have to work hard

for awards in their fields of specialization. Design and plan programs of completed

researches to be presented in research fora for information dissemination. A broader

perspective of Extension for a greater number of clients is highly recommended. Design

and plans for Income Generating Projects in SLUC to increase the income generated to

maintain/sustain the PS and MOOE funds. This is to prevent diversion of budget from PS

and MOOE. The efficient institution should share their best practices for an optimal

operation of a model University. The colleges/institutes are advised to re-assess their

virtual IOs particularly on the performance indicators to determine targets and percentages

of IOs, increase/decrease in the different performance indicators to become efficient

in its functions. All colleges/institutes of the University should work towards becoming a

model of efficiency and for one to be in the efficient frontier. Virtual IOs should be

considered and they should adapt the best practices of their peers/references in the

different performance indicators to catch up the aimed efficiency frontier of 1.000.

Lastly, future studies may venture on other factors/variables/indicators to test the

efficiency of the programs, industries and also the performance of their

institutions/organizations.


IJSER © 2012


References

Bacungan, Amelia O. and Ernesto R. Gapasin (2007). Performance Evaluation of Colleges

and Institutes at the Don Mariano Marcos Memorial State University: An

Institutional Self –Evaluation, DMMMSU, La Union

Castano, Mary Caroline N. and Emilyn Cabanda. (2007) Sources of Efficiency And

Productivity Growth In The Philippine State Universities And Colleges: A Non-

Parametric Approach, Graduate School, University of Santo Tomas, Philippines


IJSER © 2012


Defensor, Nenalyn P. (2007) Challenges and Issues in RP Higher Education, Manila

Bulletin, June 3, 2007

Lindsay AW. (2002) Institutional performance in higher education: the efficiency dimension. Review of Educational Research, 52 (2):175-199.

Poblador, Niceto S. (1998) Measuring and Enhancing the Performance of Educational

Institutions. Philippine Journal of Public Administration. Volume 42, 96-121

http:// www.ched.gov.ph

http:// www.deazone.com

Documents

Performance Efficiency of Dmmmsu Colleges and … EFFICIENCY OF DMMMSU COLLEGES AND INSTITUTES: A DATA ENVELOPMENT ANALYSIS (DEA) STUDY MILAGROS R. BALDEMOR DON MARIANO MARCOS MEMORIAL